United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
BRADLEY MURRAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cause is before the undersigned on plaintiff's motion
seeking appointment of counsel, as well as a speedy trial,
his medical records and any “video[/]audio of this
case[.]” (Doc. 18.)
first to Crandle's request for counsel, the undersigned
recognizes that “‘[a] plaintiff in a civil case
has no constitutional right to counsel.'”
McDaniels v. Lee, 405 Fed.Appx. 456, 457 (11th Cir.
Dec. 20, 2010), quoting Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d
1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). Instead, “[c]ourt
appointed counsel in civil cases is warranted only in
‘exceptional circumstances, ' and whether such
circumstances exist is  committed to district court
discretion.” Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266,
1271 (11th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). “Exceptional
circumstances justifying court appointment of counsel exist
if the facts and legal issues in the plaintiff's case are
so novel or complex that assistance of a trained practitioner
is required.” Sanks v. Williams, 402 Fed.Appx.
409, 411 (11th Cir. Oct. 22, 2010), citing Kilgo v.
Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993).
“‘The key is whether the pro se litigant
needs help in presenting the essential merits of his or her
position to the court. Where the facts and issues are simple,
he or she usually will not need such help.'”
Smith v. Belle, 321 Fed.Appx. 838, 846 (11th Cir.
Mar. 20, 2009), quoting Kilgo, supra, 983 F.2d at
193. Here, Crandle has not established that his case
(factually and/or legally) is too complex for him to
prosecute, Sanks, supra, nor has he established that
he is not competent enough to present the essential merits of
his position to this Court, cf. Smith, supra
(“Smith points out that the district court declined to
appoint him counsel, arguing that his head injury, caused by
Persac's assault, impaired him from presenting his case.
Smith is correct that any mental impairment would likely be a
relevant consideration in determining whether counsel should
have been appointed. However, the district court correctly
found that Smith did not sufficiently demonstrate such an
impairment, as his alleged head injury occurred back in 2001,
which was seven years earlier. In this respect, an
examination of Smith's filings throughout the litigation
reveals that, while he was not schooled in the law, he was
able to present adequately the ‘essential merits'
of his position to the district court.” (internal
citations omitted; emphasis in original)); in fact, the
record in this case establishes the contrary (see,
e.g., Docs. 1 & 16). Therefore, plaintiff's motion
for appointment of counsel (Doc. 18) is DENIED. See,
e.g., Shaw v. Cowart, 300 Fed.Appx. 640, 643 (11th Cir.
Nov. 13, 2008) (“Here, the facts and legal claims are
not complicated, and a review of Shaw's pleadings and
motions demonstrates that he had an adequate understanding of
the issues in this case. Therefore, we conclude that this
case ‘is not so unusual that the district court abused
its discretion by refusing to appoint counsel.' For the
same reasons, we also conclude that Shaw is not entitled to
counsel on appeal.” (internal citation omitted)),
cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1189, 129 S.Ct. 1998, 173
L.Ed.2d 1097 (2009).
plaintiff's request for a speedy trial (Doc. 18), the
undersigned simply notes that the right to a speedy trial is
guaranteed only to those charged with a criminal offense, not
to those who bring a civil action. U.S. Const. amend. VI
(“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial[.]” (emphasis supplied)).
extent plaintiff seeks the production of the entire cache of
his medical records (Doc. 18), the movant has failed to
establish that the defendants did not attach all relevant
medical information to their special report (see
Doc. 13, Attachments to Exhibit 1, Affidavit of Tunglia
Hawkins). And, finally, as for “audio[/] video of this
case, ” Crandle has not established either that such
audio/video of the incident on September 6, 2016 actually
exists or the propriety of his receipt of this information.
Cf. Howard v. Memnon, 2013 WL 1175256, *6 (M.D. Fla.
Feb. 12, 2013) (noting that videotapes of the events in
question were ordered to be filed with the court under seal),
report & recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 1175253
(M.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2013), aff'd, 572 Fed.Appx.
692 (11th Cir. Jul. 15, 2014). Accordingly, plaintiff's
April 3, 2017 Motion (Doc. 18) is DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
 In other words, at all times relevant
hereto Crandle has managed to present his straightforward
excessive use of force claim to this Court in ...